As noted in the paper: "Thus, this study builds upon previous work considering males9 to estimate the effect of body size (indexed from stature as this is curre

As noted in the paper: "Thus, this study builds upon previous work considering males9 to estimate the effect of body size (indexed from stature as this is currently a key operational anthropometric criterion, unlike body mass)". What would be interesting is to perform the same comparison indexed on body mass, since many of the differences between male and female requirements seem to be predicated on body mass vs stature differences between male and female. You can kinda estimate this by comparing a 1.5m male and 1.6m female in their data fields (typical 1.5m male is approximately same mass typical 1.6m female in their dataset). It does seem that a 1.5m male still expends more resources during "aerobic countermeasures" (ie exercise). Still, interesting stuff. 1.6m female is basically the US 50th percentile height for females. In principle, restricting crew to that criteria wouldn't be too logistically onerous (you still get ~25% of the US population to work with).